App State

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

Farther out is better on every spoke. Dashed ring: the FBS median.

• EPA per play

  Expected points added on an average snap: how much each play moved the scoring odds.
  Offense+0.2186th
  Defense−0.0798th
• Success rate

  Share of snaps that stayed on schedule: half the yards needed on 1st down, 70% on 2nd, all of them on 3rd or 4th.
  Offense43.5%47th
  Defense36.9%92nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3897th
  Defense+1.0791st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1678th
  Defense−0.0283rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3081st
  Defense−0.1599th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.9%44th
  Defense39.6%97th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.9%52nd
  Defense31.9%60th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9247th
  Defense2.8064th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.1%38th
  Defense19.7%52nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.6%78th
  Defense18.3%79th

Percentiles among the 130 FBS teams this season, where higher is better for the offense and the defense alike (a defense's numbers are what it allowed). The line in each bar is the FBS median. Garbage time excluded. Source: CollegeFootballData.

Drives vs. expectation, 2018

Every snap has an expected-points value: what a drive from that spot, down and distance is worth on average. A drive over expected beat its starting spot; defense counts what App State allowed, so lower is better. The adjusted number fits every team against the opponents it actually played, so it leans toward average early in a season. Ranks are among FBS teams.

Game by game

1. L
   PSU
2. W
   CLT
3. W
   GWEB
4. W
   USA
5. W
   ARST
6. W
   UL
7. L
   GASO
8. W
   CCU
9. W
   TXST
10. W
    GAST
11. W
    TROY
12. W
    UL
13. W
    MTSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for App State.

Players, 2018

1. Zac ThomasQB254 plays · +0.307 pts/play · 56th of 225 QBs
   1.46WAR1.05 to 1.96
2. Darrynton EvansRB161 plays · +0.165 pts/play · 58th of 351 RBs
   0.50WAR0.39 to 0.63
3. Marcus Williams Jr.RB72 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 181st of 351 RBs
   0.24WAR0.19 to 0.30
4. Corey SuttonWR53 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 113th of 434 WRs
   0.14WAR0.07 to 0.21
5. Jalin MooreRB47 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 253rd of 351 RBs
   0.13WAR0.10 to 0.17
6. Chandler StatonPK10 plays · +0.404 pts/play · 84th of 112 kickers
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.10
7. Thomas HenniganWR29 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 284th of 434 WRs
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.10
8. Malik WilliamsWR23 plays · +0.087 pts/play · 350th of 434 WRs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.06

By position group, against FBS

Linemen and defenders are valued as units, in points per game against the median FBS unit, because play-by-play doesn't say who was on the field. Players are valued against a replacement-level backup, so the two aren't added together.

Wins above replacement credits each play's expected points to the players involved, adjusted for the opponent, and compares App State's players with a typical backup; 53 points make a win. Only snaps while the game was in doubt count, so a starter on a team that blows opponents out plays fewer of them: read value per play beside WAR. The line under each player (or the range on a phone) is the 90% interval. Ranks are among FBS teams and players. How this works

What it had and what it did, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  356356111th of 130Roster talent: 356, 111th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  115115113th of 130Recruiting: 115, 113th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  31%31%114th of 129Returning production: 31%, 114th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +11.9+11.929th of 130SP+ rating: +11.9, 29th of 130 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2018

Each real fourth down is valued three ways (go for it, kick, punt) from the score, clock and field position before the snap, using league-wide odds rather than App State's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 0 clear-cut ones account for 0.00 of the 0.04 expected wins. The model sees the situation, not the injury report, so a call it disagrees with can still be right. Ranks are among FBS teams; 1st gave up the least.

Costliest calls against the numbers

1. at PSUQ4 5:19 4th & 4 at APP 43, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
2. vs TROYQ3 3:50 4th & 3 at APP 48, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
3. vs TROYQ3 4:23 4th & 7 at APP 45, up 11Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts
4. at PSUQ3 9:35 4th & 3 at APP 38, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
5. vs ULQ3 12:21 4th & 3 at APP 47, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
6. at CCUQ3 11:32 4th & 22 at CCU 37, up 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts
7. at CLTQ3 11:27 4th & 3 at APP 42, up 15Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. at ARSTQ3 6:27 4th & 4 at APP 9, up 12Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

31st of 130 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up App State's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. L

   PSU
2. W

   CLT
3. W

   GWEB
4. W

   USA
5. W

   ARST
6. W

   UL
7. L

   GASO
8. W

   CCU
9. W

   TXST
10. W

    GAST
11. W

    TROY
12. W

    UL
13. W

    MTSU

What moved it, 2018

Every game starts at App State's pregame chance; everything after that is the field. The model's own breakdown of each game's final play splits the on-field part by what drove it, and the parts add up exactly. How it works →

• Scoreboard+1.56
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts+0.09
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.54

Game by game

• PSUL 38-45 at PSU4% → 20%Before kickoff −46 · On the field +15: Scoreboard −12, Timeouts +9
• CLTW 45-9 at CLT77% → 100%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +29
• GWEBW 72-7 vs GWEB99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• USAW 52-7 vs USA94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +8
• ARSTW 35-9 at ARST70% → 100%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +36
• ULW 27-17 vs UL93% → 96%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +13, Timeouts +1
• GASOL 14-34 at GASO73% → 0%Before kickoff +23 · On the field −73: Scoreboard −55, Timeouts −2
• CCUW 23-7 at CCU81% → 98%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +29, Clock +1
• TXSTW 38-7 at TXST89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +16
• GASTW 45-17 vs GAST95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +8
• TROYW 21-10 vs TROY77% → 97%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +25, Timeouts +1
• ULW 30-19 vs UL84% → 97%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +20, Timeouts +1
• MTSUW 45-13 vs MTSU63% → 100%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +37

Points of win probability, from App State's side.

Closest call

MRSH 9-31 APP (2023) - App State dropped to a 4.5% win probability before pulling it out.